Farmer's Land Need Not Be In His Own Name To Claim Relief Under CM's Krishak Durghatna Scheme: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that for grant of benefits under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, the primary source of income/ livelihood of the deceased farmer needs to be seen rather than seeing the revenue records to ascertain whether the agricultural land was in the name of the deceased or not.The “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” has been brought in the State of UP to provide financial assistance to the families of farmers who die in accidents. The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,“From a perusal of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, it is evident that the object of the “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” is to provide financial assistance to the dependents of farmers who die in accidents. The scheme does not make it mandatory that the agricultural land must be recorded in the name of the deceased farmer alone.”It added, “What is required to be examined is whether the deceased was primarily engaged in agricultural work and whether agriculture was the main source of livelihood for him and his family. In rural set-ups, it is a common practice that land continues to remain recorded in the name of the elder family member, while other members of the family carry on agricultural activities jointly.”Petitioner's husband, a farmer, died in a road accident leaving behind a father, petitioner and their 3 minor children. Deceased was said to be working at the farm owned by his grandfather and his primary source of livelihood was agriculture. Petitioner's claim under the Yojna was rejected on grounds that the deceased ran a general store/ bangle shop which was his source of livelihood and not agriculture and the land was recorded in the name of his grandfather. This rejection was challenged before the High Court. Observing that in most rural set ups in India, the land is recorded in the name of the eldest member of the family, the Court held that no cogent material was brought on record to show that the deceased was actually running a shop instead of being a farmer. It further observed that the material brought on record by the petitioner to show that her brother-in-law was working at a store and her husband was a farmer was rejected without application of mind by the respondent authority.Observing that welfare schemes must liberally construed, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authority reconsider the claim afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State Of U P And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29414 of 2021]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Farmer's Land Need Not Be In His Own Name To Claim Relief Under CM's Krishak Durghatna Scheme: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags